Page 7 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 46 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: The Islamophobia Industry Strikes in Kansas
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 7:21AM #61
BDboy
Posts: 5,460

Jun 12, 2012 -- 10:11PM, christzen wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 9:08PM, mytmouse57 wrote:



Well, being all for freedom myself, I guess I can't raise an argument, if the people and Legislature of Kansas want to make xenophobic jackholes of themselves.


But, I can point and laugh.




 


If you want to laugh at a state simply saying to Muslims, "you won't get special legal rights here", then fine, laugh. I seriously doubt if any Kansas folks give a hoot that you are laughing at them for telling Muslims they will get treated the same as everyone else.


 


And I think  it is a stretch of epic proportions to consider people to be xenophobic jackholes for saying that Muslims get treated equal with everyone else. But whatever.


"You Muslims come here to Kansas and see how it goes for ya. We're gonna see you get treated just like everyone else. SO THERE! How do ya like that,huh?"


 


Geez.




 


>>>>>>>>> There is no doubt in my mind that most people in Kansas are some of the nicest in the world. No doubt.


At the same time the level of ignorance and the role played by local churches cannot be ignored.


Brownback was one issue candidate (Abortion) and played with it throughout his career. He is the kind of leader who often need a "Side show" to help him to get elected. Albeit Sharia does not have any connection to lives of most Kansas, it may help him get re-elected for "Defending" Kansas from nothing!!


 


Brownback is a polarizing figure and very different than Sen. Bob Dole (I liked him) or other law makers.


There are lawyears and there are ambulance chasers. Brownback is the sensational hungry ambulance chaser who use religion the wrong way to get to power. I used to call him "Kansas Taleban"......


Today kansas needs to get more people moving into the state (To widen tax payers) and it is the wrong signal to those who wanted to move into simple country charm.


Since Kansas is very much part of the "Bible belt", some churches are playing "Sharia card" to get more members which will ultimately work against those places.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 7:30AM #62
BDboy
Posts: 5,460

Jun 12, 2012 -- 7:27PM, christzen wrote:


Jun 12, 2012 -- 6:05PM, Erey wrote:


  My biggest disapointment is not with the regular people who join the anti-sharia bandwagon.  But rather the typically much more educated legislators who seize the situation to enflame the constituents and make a bit of political hay.  There is no excuse for them to be uneducated on the subject .




 


I'm not exactly sure why it should be the responsibility of a Kansas legislator, or any other politician for that matter, to become educated on Sharia law.


 


I'm also not sure what all the hullaballo is about with this law. It bascally says all people ,including Muslims, will be treated the same as any other American before the law.  There is nothing at all discriminatory about treating Muslms they same as everyone else, and saying they cannot appeal to Sharia law in Kansas courts.


 




 


>>>>>>> It does not take long. Couple of hours to get the basics. Anyway if you are voting on Sharia, you should know what you are voting for or voting against. It is common sense.


If it ONLY says Muslims will be treated the "Same", there would not have been any need to pass a NEW law against it!!


However you are right in one area. This law may not impact Muslims in a big way. Only shows level of ignorance of the law maker and people who support it. Which is the wrong kind of publicity for the state of Kansas.


Right now Kansas is not known for having the brightest people in America. This move will only re-enforce such non-sense about Kansas. That is all. NO major loss for Muslims but a blow to image of Kansas.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 7:52AM #63
BDboy
Posts: 5,460

Jun 12, 2012 -- 8:15PM, Fodaoson wrote:


These kind of law  are just silly and a waste of legislative time and effort.  The new law, taking effect July 1,  says courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.  Article VI of the US constitution says ”  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”


If the proponents of the Kansas law and similar ones are not careful it will come back to bite them on the behind.  The groups pushing  the laws also  were  pushing posting the
Ten Commandments  which is of another Middle eastern culture origin, Judaism 





 


>>>>> Yup. When folks in Alabama put up Ten commandments in public, most Kansans supported it.


I hope this is be another opportunity for Muslims to educate your average non-Muslim kansans.


Look how it was presented...


"They stone women to death in countries that have Sharia law," Sen. Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, said during the debate. "If you vote to not adopt (the bill), it's a vote against women."


 


....................................................


Sam Brownback and Kansas Republicans are hypocrites, through and through.


In 2008, then-U.S. Sen. Brownback introduced a resolution in the Senate that designated the first weekend of May as "Ten Commandments Weekend." A few years before that, Brownback was out front urging that the Pledge of Allegiance retain its mention of "one nation under God," saying: "There is nothing more American than the Pledge of Allegiance and an acknowledgement of God is at the heart of our founding principles and is our nation's motto."


The examples don't end there. Along with former Sen. Rick Santorum, Brownback has been one of America's most aggressive and unapologetic politicians in advocating for religion's role in America's public and governmental life.


Islam is the exception to this rule. Brownback and Kansas Republicans are vigorous defenders of the separation of church and state only when non-Christians are involved..........................................................................


The bill's supporters never showed that Islamic law actually was distorting or affecting Kansas jurisprudence.


[ Source: www.newschief.com/article/20120605/NEWS/... ]




My question is when did ANY Muslim proposed to stone anyone? Hypocricy and drama with no substance.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 9:11AM #64
TemplarS
Posts: 6,726

Jun 13, 2012 -- 7:52AM, BDboy wrote:



My question is when did ANY Muslim proposed to stone anyone? Hypocricy and drama with no substance.






To be fair, BD, you need to qualify that with Muslim in the US.


Frankly, this is part of the problem.  There are instances of other abhorrent foreign cultural practices (not limited to Islam, I want to be clear- I use the word cultural as opposed to religious for a reason) finding their way to the US.  So-called "honor killing" for one, female genital mutilation for another. 


The fear is that this sort of thing will find some sort of justification in various "laws" of the newcomers. Particularly as the 1st amendments guarantee of free exercise of religion might carve out some sort of exemption for some practices (I think this has been argued for things like animal sacrifice).


Some of these practices (honor killing, obviously) are clearly against the law in the US. I'm not sure about female genital mutilation.  It should go without saying that when a person moves to this country there is an implicit understanding that they agree to abide by the laws of this country.  I agree that it is uncessary today, but I imagine some people feel if needs to be explicitly said.


There is  no doubt whasoever that anti-Muslim prejudice plays into this, and I understand why Muslims in particular will be offended by this. 


But dealing with it requires more than a "you are a bigot" dismissal.  There are objectionable cultural practices going on elsewhere in the world; what is necessary is a recognition of this followed by an explanation of why these practices are not a threat to the US.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 10:32AM #65
Erey
Posts: 18,594

 


[/quote]


 


Divorce is one case where sharia law mght come into play. But since sharia law typically gives custody of children to the man, while in normal situations courts usuallly give custody to the woman, this discriminates against non Muslim men.


 


Another example would be Muslim women wanting to have their DL picture taken with a burqa on, or refusing to remove the burqa for ID purposes when stopped by a police officer.


 


Once again, the Kansas law says that Muslims and others get treated exactly the same as the rest of America. It is laughable to consider this discrimination.


 




 


[/quote]


 


Well Christzen in regards to cases of child custody there is no "discrimination" since both parties agree to adhere to sharia - just becasue they are muslim does not mean they have to.  Just becasue one spouse wants to get a sharia ruling does not mean the other has to agree.  So I think discrimination is the wrong word here.  Because families often divide child custody based on a variety of issues.  There is a typical child custody arrangement but often there are deviations. 


And having your face covered in a DL is against our laws and therefore never going to fly.  I understand there are cases of women petitioning the courts for the right to have their face covered in a DL but those cases don't go anywhere because we dont do that here and I don't see us doing that here because it goes against the whole purpose of photo identification and the ability to identify someone. 


 


Again, what we are talking about with civil issues have always been somewhat flexible and customized for the individuals involved.  So I am not sure what is gained by sharia when the two parties can just agree to sharia recomendations just like the two parties might agree to whatever a pastor suggests or a child therapist.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 10:42AM #66
browbeaten
Posts: 3,094

Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:32AM, Erey wrote:


 




 


Divorce is one case where sharia law mght come into play. But since sharia law typically gives custody of children to the man, while in normal situations courts usuallly give custody to the woman, this discriminates against non Muslim men.


 


Another example would be Muslim women wanting to have their DL picture taken with a burqa on, or refusing to remove the burqa for ID purposes when stopped by a police officer.


 


Once again, the Kansas law says that Muslims and others get treated exactly the same as the rest of America. It is laughable to consider this discrimination.


 




 




 


Well Christzen in regards to cases of child custody there is no "discrimination" since both parties agree to adhere to sharia - just becasue they are muslim does not mean they have to.  Just becasue one spouse wants to get a sharia ruling does not mean the other has to agree.  So I think discrimination is the wrong word here.  Because families often divide child custody based on a variety of issues.  There is a typical child custody arrangement but often there are deviations. 


And having your face covered in a DL is against our laws and therefore never going to fly.  I understand there are cases of women petitioning the courts for the right to have their face covered in a DL but those cases don't go anywhere because we dont do that here and I don't see us doing that here because it goes against the whole purpose of photo identification and the ability to identify someone. 


 


Again, what we are talking about with civil issues have always been somewhat flexible and customized for the individuals involved.  So I am not sure what is gained by sharia when the two parties can just agree to sharia recomendations just like the two parties might agree to whatever a pastor suggests or a child therapist.




As a side note, abused women often deny the beating and excuse the abuser.   Stating that both parties agree to religious law is often not the real truth.  Which is why we have secular courts and rulings based secular law.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 11:05AM #67
Erey
Posts: 18,594

Jun 13, 2012 -- 11:02AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


 


Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:17AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Just because you do not know of any Muslims who are advocating the imposition of the Sharia in the U.S. does not mean there aren't any. 


Revolution: Liberation by Revelation Hizb Ut Tahrir America


atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs...


 


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbut_Tahrir


So if a have a "phobia" it is against these Muslims and all other Americans however many they may be.  


And what is really wrong or immoral about establishing the Sharia in the U.S.   It is after all the Divine Law of Allah given to all mankind.  Unlike the U.S. Constitution which doesn't even mention Allah the most compassionate, tolerant, and all knowing.  It must be clear even to the ignorant infidels that Law of Allah must be superior to that of mere men.  


It is my understanding that the overhelming majority of Sharia Law is compatible with the U.S. Constitution.   Those who fear the Sharia are Shariaphobic because they are as ignorant of the Sharia as they are of Islam. 


 




 




Jun 12, 2012 -- 12:13PM, BDboy wrote:


>>>>>>>> I am aware of Hizb ul tahrir movement. As far as I know no Muslim majority country accepted their "Proposal" or they don't have any political footprint to speak of. If they cannot even get Muslims to rally around them, I think it is impractical to think Americans will support them anytime soon.


The only way to make proposal in American is via democratic system and last time I checked Americans are NOT opposed to "Democratic system".



Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:11PM, BDboy wrote:


>>>>>>>> Before you get to chose if you want it or "Avoid it", you should know NO Muslim organizations ( I know some leaders in the largest ones) even proposed it!!



So there IS a Muslim organization in the United States that wants Sharia Law in the United States and there are "some" American Muslim leaders in the largest ones, like CAIR that have proposed it.


 


Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:11PM, BDboy wrote:


They are as popular as Kansas militia in America. I do not know of ANY Muslim majority country where they gained any political power or even came close to it. If it was note worthy I would have mentioned it. :-)



I don't know of any Muslim majority country in which the Hizb ul tahrir movement has gained political power either.  However I do know that there are other political-religious organizations in Muslim majority countries that are very "popular"  and have established Sharia Law as the state religion. In the example of Egypt the millions of Christians in Egypt are not "concerned" about be "forced-compelled to become-believe in Islam.  What they are "concerned" about is that the Sharia-Allah's Laws is going to the State Religion of Egypt.  Because while "Islam" and the Sharia-Allah's law are perfectl and fair the Muslims applying them are not are not.  


 


 


Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:17AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


And what is really wrong or immoral about establishing the Sharia in the U.S.   It is after all the Divine Law of Allah given to all mankind.  Unlike the U.S. Constitution which doesn't even mention Allah the most compassionate, tolerant, and all knowing.  It must be clear even to the ignorant infidels that Law of Allah must be superior to that of mere men.  


It is my understanding that the overhelming majority of Sharia Law is compatible with the U.S. Constitution.   Those who fear the Sharia are Shariaphobic because they are as ignorant of the Sharia as they are of Islam. 




 


Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:


>>>>>>>> It is wrong becasue these words were taken out of context. Since Islam does NOT support forcing religion to non-Muslims [ Source: Al Qur'an 2:256]. Yes, this may be "News" to most of you but history will support it.



What history supports is that in ANY theocracy, wether democratic or not those who are not adherents of the "Offical-State" religion are almost always not treated EQUALLY.  There may be a degree of fairness but not EQUAL fairness. 


Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:


In Europe Muslims ruled most of it for 800 years without any massive conversion movement.



Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.  Unlike Indonesia Spain was conqured by force by Muslims. Throughout the rule by the Muslim Caliphate in Spain there were no voluntary mass revervison to Islam.  The majority of people in Spain remained Christians who were ruled by a minority of Muslims. 


Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:


 In India Muslims ruled that sub-continent for 1000 years and 87% of Indians are non-Muslims. Lastly the largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia (Over 200 million Muslims) never saw a "Muslim army" on it. It was people to people contact which made it popular.



In India the 13% of Muslims ruled 87% of Non-Muslims for 1,000 years. 


While it is true that in "Indonesia" never saw an "Arab-Muslim" army there was more than one "other" countries that did see an Muslim armies of various nationalies-ethnicties-races. 


Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:


Even today Islam is the fastest growing religion in western Europe and North America. I do not think anyone would say we are forcing people to accept Islam.



And before you know it Europeans and North Americans will be the most popular and majority.  They can then democractically establish an Islamic Theorcracy!


Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:


Not only Sharia laws are similar to US constitution. They are also related to "Biblical laws". Since Islam, Christianity and Judaism are known as "Abrahamic faiths" to scholars of religion.



So then there is no reason to be phobic about "Biblical-Quranic-Christian-Abrhamic Law" !


While there are "similarities" between Jewish and Islamic Laws to the U.S. Constitution there are also "differnces. 


There are also "differences" between Biblical-Quranic Laws and Secular Laws. 


Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Erey wrote:

 


Most countries with Muslim majority population practice Sharia in civil matters. They do not practice Sharia for criminal matters. Even though as long you follow 'Due process" [ Which is to make sure we are blaimg the right person and giving that person a chance to defend himself/herself] it works perfectly. Saudi Arabia practice Sharia and have one of the lowest crime rates in the world!!



Help me to understand why Sharia Criminal Laws are not practiced in most Muslim majority countries?


Sharia Criminal Laws are the Laws of Islam and Allah.  So long as they are applied "fairly and with due process". 


In Saudia Arabia they practice Sharia Criminal Law and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world then I do not understand why other Muslim majority countries do not practice Allah's Criminal Laws.  


 


 




 


 


WOAH,  I am being quoted for things I never said.  There is being alot attributed to me that I never said. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 11:44AM #68
TRUECHRISTIAN
Posts: 1,075

Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:17AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Just because you do not know of any Muslims who are advocating the imposition of the Sharia in the U.S. does not mean there aren't any.


Revolution: Liberation by Revelation Hizb Ut Tahrir America


atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs...



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbut_Tahrir


So if a have a "phobia" it is against these Muslims and all other Americans however many they may be. 


And what is really wrong or immoral about establishing the Sharia in the U.S.   It is after all the Divine Law of Allah given to all mankind.  Unlike the U.S. Constitution which doesn't even mention Allah the most compassionate, tolerant, and all knowing.  It must be clear even to the ignorant infidels that Law of Allah must be superior to that of mere men. 


It is my understanding that the overhelming majority of Sharia Law is compatible with the U.S. Constitution.   Those who fear the Sharia are Shariaphobic because they are as ignorant of the Sharia as they are of Islam.








 

Jun 12, 2012 -- 12:13PM, BDboy wrote:


>>>>>>>> I am aware of Hizb ul tahrir movement. As far as I know no Muslim majority country accepted their "Proposal" or they don't have any political footprint to speak of. If they cannot even get Muslims to rally around them, I think it is impractical to think Americans will support them anytime soon.


The only way to make proposal in American is via democratic system and last time I checked Americans are NOT opposed to "Democratic system".



Jun 12, 2012 -- 12:13PM, BDboy wrote:


>>>>>>>> Before you get to chose if you want it or "Avoid it", you should know NO Muslim organizations ( I know some leaders in the largest ones) even proposed it!!



So there IS a Muslim organization in the United States that wants Sharia Law in the United States and there are "some" American Muslim leaders in the largest ones, like CAIR that have proposed it.


Jun 12, 2012 -- 12:13PM, BDboy wrote:


They are as popular as Kansas militia in America. I do not know of ANY Muslim majority country where they gained any political power or even came close to it. If it was note worthy I would have mentioned it. :-)



I don't know of any Muslim majority country in which the Hizb ul tahrir movement has gained political power either.  However I do know that there are other political-religious organizations in Muslim majority countries that are very "popular"  and have established Sharia Law as the state religion. In the example of Egypt the millions of Christians in Egypt are not "concerned" about be "forced-compelled to become-believe in Islam.  What they are "concerned" about is that the Sharia-Allah's Laws is going to the State Religion of Egypt.  Because while "Islam" and the Sharia-Allah's law are perfectl and fair the Muslims applying them are not are not. 




Jun 12, 2012 -- 11:17AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


And what is really wrong or immoral about establishing the Sharia in the U.S.   It is after all the Divine Law of Allah given to all mankind.  Unlike the U.S. Constitution which doesn't even mention Allah the most compassionate, tolerant, and all knowing.  It must be clear even to the ignorant infidels that Law of Allah must be superior to that of mere men. 


It is my understanding that the overhelming majority of Sharia Law is compatible with the U.S. Constitution.   Those who fear the Sharia are Shariaphobic because they are as ignorant of the Sharia as they are of Islam.





Jun 12, 2012 -- 12:13PM, BDboy wrote:


>>>>>>>> It is wrong becasue these words were taken out of context. Since Islam does NOT support forcing religion to non-Muslims [ Source: Al Qur'an 2:256]. Yes, this may be "News" to most of you but history will support it.



What history supports is that in ANY theocracy, wether democratic or not those who are not adherents of the "Offical-State" religion are almost always not treated EQUALLY.  There may be a degree of fairness but not EQUAL fairness. 


Jun 12, 2012 -- 12:13PM, BDboy wrote:


In Europe Muslims ruled most of it for 800 years without any massive conversion movement.



Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.  Unlike Indonesia Spain was conqured by force by Muslims. Throughout the rule by the Muslim Caliphate in Spain there were no voluntary mass revervison to Islam.  The majority of people in Spain remained Christians who were ruled by a minority of Muslims.



In India Muslims ruled that sub-continent for 1000 years and 87% of Indians are non-Muslims. Lastly the largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia (Over 200 million Muslims) never saw a "Muslim army" on it. It was people to people contact which made it popular.



In India the 13% of Muslims ruled 87% of Non-Muslims for 1,000 years.


While it is true that in "Indonesia" never saw an "Arab-Muslim" army there was more than one "other" countries that did see an Muslim armies of various nationalies-ethnicties-races.


Jun 12, 2012 -- 12:13PM, BDboy wrote:


Even today Islam is the fastest growing religion in western Europe and North America. I do not think anyone would say we are forcing people to accept Islam.



And before you know it Europeans and North Americans will be the most popular and majority.  They can then democractically establish an Islamic Theorcracy!



Not only Sharia laws are similar to US constitution. They are also related to "Biblical laws". Since Islam, Christianity and Judaism are known as "Abrahamic faiths" to scholars of religion.



So then there is no reason to be phobic about "Biblical-Quranic-Christian-Abrhamic Law" !


While there are "similarities" between Jewish and Islamic Laws to the U.S. Constitution there are also "differnces.


There are also "differences" between Biblical-Quranic Laws and Secular Laws.


Jun 12, 2012 -- 12:13PM, BDboy wrote:


Most countries with Muslim majority population practice Sharia in civil matters. They do not practice Sharia for criminal matters. Even though as long you follow 'Due process" [ Which is to make sure we are blaimg the right person and giving that person a chance to defend himself/herself] it works perfectly. Saudi Arabia practice Sharia and have one of the lowest crime rates in the world!!



Help me to understand why Sharia Criminal Laws are not practiced in most Muslim majority countries?


Sharia Criminal Laws are the Laws of Islam and Allah.  So long as they are applied "fairly and with due process".


In Saudia Arabia they practice Sharia Criminal Law and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world then I do not understand why other Muslim majority countries do not practice Allah's Criminal Laws. 


Help me understand why they don't.



In Saudia Arabia there is very little crimes due to theft because they due practice "hand chopping" .  I may be mistaken but I believe that "handchopping for theft" is mentioned in the Quran and is in the Sharia.   It would seem to me that so long as "due process"  is "fairly" applied then it should be practiced in Islamic majority countries like Egypt and Pakistan.


It would also seem to me that if  "handchopping" does discourage theft then the United States should adopt a "similar"  Abrahamic Law


 


P.S.  Erey I apolgize for attributing posts to you that should have been meant for BDboy.  

I could be wrong.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 1:49PM #69
Erey
Posts: 18,594

Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:42AM, browbeaten wrote:


 like the two parties might agree to whatever a pastor suggests or a child therapist.




As a side note, abused women often deny the beating and excuse the abuser.   Stating that both parties agree to religious law is often not the real truth.  Which is why we have secular courts and rulings based secular law.






Browbeaten by the time a divorce is being drawn up women are often quite loud about any abuse real or imagined they might have endured.  Men too.  But it is irrelevant in any case. 


People when getting divorced come up with all kinds of different arrangements, it  is very individualized.  Often a judges feelings or biases come into play also.  It is just like how people often want to get married under the rules of a religion, right?  Often a couple having a religious wedding will also agree together on aspects of their marriage that is more in line with their religion.  In this case the couple is agreeing to get divorced based on the guidelines of their religion.    I wonder about the necessity of sharia because at the end of the day if a divorcing couple comes before the judge and says "  here we have the details all worked out, according to the guidlines of our clergyman and the needs of our children and what we see as fair property division"  The judge is going to say OK- you both agree give me my rubber stamp. 


I am thinking a sharia court is a place where they will hash out these details.  Probably without sharia court there has been something akin to Sharia mediation for a very long time in the US.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 5:20PM #70
browbeaten
Posts: 3,094

Jun 13, 2012 -- 1:49PM, Erey wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:42AM, browbeaten wrote:


 like the two parties might agree to whatever a pastor suggests or a child therapist.




As a side note, abused women often deny the beating and excuse the abuser.   Stating that both parties agree to religious law is often not the real truth.  Which is why we have secular courts and rulings based secular law.






Browbeaten by the time a divorce is being drawn up women are often quite loud about any abuse real or imagined they might have endured.  Men too.  But it is irrelevant in any case. 


People when getting divorced come up with all kinds of different arrangements, it  is very individualized.  Often a judges feelings or biases come into play also.  It is just like how people often want to get married under the rules of a religion, right?  Often a couple having a religious wedding will also agree together on aspects of their marriage that is more in line with their religion.  In this case the couple is agreeing to get divorced based on the guidelines of their religion.    I wonder about the necessity of sharia because at the end of the day if a divorcing couple comes before the judge and says "  here we have the details all worked out, according to the guidlines of our clergyman and the needs of our children and what we see as fair property division"  The judge is going to say OK- you both agree give me my rubber stamp. 


I am thinking a sharia court is a place where they will hash out these details.  Probably without sharia court there has been something akin to Sharia mediation for a very long time in the US.




Erey, I'm not disagreeing with the idea of "religious" influence on divorce and what's best for the child.  I'm simply stating that if, for example, religious law states father gets custody of child, the mother may not agree, but could be too afraid, etc to provide recourse.  Secular law looks at what is "best" for the child and although the families religious beliefs influence the decision, the court's decision will be for the child and not what any religion dictates.


Do all judges, always protect the child or mother? Probably not, but I would sure hope it is more of the rule.
www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/sharias_...

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 46  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 46 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook